This is also called the base rate fallacy. As soon as you put it into relation to the base rate you get a more useful number for your own decisions. For exampl

This is also called the base rate fallacy. As soon as you put it into relation to the base rate you get a more useful number for your own decisions. For example if the numbers are stated as above (1:10000 ratio in people driving motorcycles to people driving cars), you have to multiply the risk of motorcycling by 10000 to get it to the same level as the risk of driving. If you look up the numbers there are 8.3 million motorcycles registered in the US. While there's a total of 273 million registered vehicles (this includes motorcycles). I used 2018 numbers for both, to make them comparable. https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/bibliography/2181 https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/bibliography/2181 https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicle... The number stated in the odds is also for all vehicles I assume since motorcycles are motor vehicles. This leads us to 8.3/273~3.04% of the vehicles on the road in the US are motorcycles. That means that you have to compare 1/899 / 3.04% to the 1/107 figure. I.e. lifetime chance of death with motorcycle is roughly 3.66% and chance of death with any motor vehicle is 0.93%. This of course still ignores details like how often people use their motorcycle (usually fewer kms than in cars), which roads they use (more dangerous but fun country roads instead of highways), etc. but it gives you at least a ballpark estimate that using a motorcycle will up your risk by about a factor of 4x vs any motor vehicle (any including motorcycles). Also you can only die once, so if you're a heavy smoker you probably lessen your risk of motorcycle death considerably.